Risk assessment describes the impact of a particular hazard as a function of dose and exposure. It forms the foundation of risk management and contributes to the overall decision-making process, but is not its endpoint. This paper outlines a risk analysis framework to underpin decision-making in the area of allergen cross-contact. Specifically, it identifies challenges relevant to each component of the risk analysis: risk assessment (data gaps and output interpretation); risk management (clear and realistic objectives); and risk communication (clear articulation of risk and benefit). Translation of the outputs from risk assessment models into risk management measures must be informed by a clear understanding of the model outputs and their limitations. This will lead to feasible and achievable risk management objectives, grounded in a level of risk accepted by the different stakeholders, thereby avoiding potential unintended detrimental consequences. Clear, consistent and trustworthy communications actively involving all stakeholders underpin these objectives. The conclusions, integrating the perspectives of different stakeholders, offer a vision where clear, science-based benchmarks form the basis of allergen management and labelling, cutting through the current confusion and uncertainty. Finally, the paper recognises that the proposed framework must be adaptable to new and emerging evidence.

Food allergy is a relatively recent newcomer to the ranks of food safety issues, only being effectively recognised as such in the last 25-30 years. This recognition, allied with the near impossibility of avoiding the unintended presence of small, yet potentially dangerous residues of allergenic constituents, brought with it the need to assess and manage the resulting risk. This paper provides an overview of the development and current knowledge and thinking on risk assessment and its application to risk management of food allergens. It also discusses the associated challenges, in particular those around communicating meaningfully that risk to allergic consumers, including the use of precautionary labelling. The paper also provides an introductory context to the more detailed analyses of these issues in the following papers, based on the deliberations of a recent stakeholder workshop. The paper concludes that consistent risk management approaches using agreed quantitative action levels based on scientifically robust principles will provide optimal protection to allergic consumers. Growing amounts of data from oral food challenges along with the parallel development of risk assessment methodologies, such as probabilistic modelling, offer a realistic possibility of agreement among stakeholders on such levels in the near future.

Family Foods Ltd has launched Europe’s first new Manuka honey brand which is fully compliant with labelling guidelines published by the New Zealand Government.
MGO® Manuka honey is available at 300+mg/kg, 450+mg/kg and 600+mg/kg levels.
Therapeutic claims such as “Non-Peroxide Activity”, “Total Activity”, “Total Peroxide Activity” and “Active” should be removed from labels and advertising, according to the new guidelines.
Manuka honey is a multi million pound industry in the UK. There are a significant number of brands on sale and much confusion around the on pack claims and numbers. Some Manuka brands proudly advertise the amount of Peroxide Activity found in the honey, when Peroxide Activity can be found in most varieties of honey from around the world.
MGO® Manuka honey is graded on the amount of Methyglyoxal found within the honey. Methylglyoxal is the unique compound which makes Manuka unique from all other honey varieties. As a result it is very difficult to source and very expensive, when compared to cheap Peroxide based honey.
The New Zealand guidelines were published in July 2014 and it is hoped that the UK Food Standards Agency and UK Trading Standards will adopt all or part of this recent publication.